|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Ethical Question #549
Posted By: Dave
Lets say you collect only vintage cards that are slabbed. However, that one card you've always desired is now available to you, unslabbed. So, you buy the card with the intention of getting it graded. You send the card to any of the big three. The card comes back as trimmed, or altered etc. Through all your years of experience, you can NOT tell the card has been tampered with at all. Obviously your dissapointed. Since you cant get the card slabbed you decide to go ahead and sell it. Since you cant tell anything is wrong with the card other than the one grading company telling you that there is, do you make mention of the fact that the card has been tampered when selling??? Do you instead say "well that one grading company is full of idiots, so I'll sell the card and not mention it, and hopefully the guy buying it sends it to grading company B or C?" Just curious in people's thoughts as to should you disclose the information based on what one grading company has said, even though in your experience looking at the card it doesn't look altered in anyway?? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Ethical Question #549
Posted By: Steve M.
In my opinion (and you're going to get a number of varying ones) is that if a card has been deemed trimmed by one of the big three you should disclose that fact when selling the card. If you decide not to disclose you should have a money back policy should the buyer determine that the card is in fact not as represented. Remember omitting a relevant fact is a misrepresentation just as much as making a false statement in connection with the sale. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Ethical Question #549
Posted By: Martin Neal
I know I am not really answering your question, but I would try to exhaust your possibilities with the grading services. I have had cards returned from PSA as trimmed when I was almost positive that they were not trimmed. These cards were then sent to SGC, and all three were subsequently graded. We all know that T206s come in varying sizes, some short and some trapezoid, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are trimmed. If your efforts are fruitless, then I would just bite the bullet on the card and disclose that you have not been able to get the card graded. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Ethical Question #549
Posted By: steve f
If you're not going the full disclose route, at least have it Authenticated. We've all seen some _A's_ fetch more than low-graded examples. On the plus side, you lose the anxiety of being exposed AND the risk of tainting your rep in the future. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Ethical Question #549
Posted By: Peter_Spaeth
Ask yourself, if you were the buyer, is the fact that one grading service had rejected the card for trimming something you would want to know and that would affect the price you would pay? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Ethical Question #549
Posted By: Steve M.
have had cards deemed trimmed by ______ (you fill in the blank) that were submitted to _____ (again, fill in the blank) and graded. Of eleven (11) submitted six (6) were graded. I do not submit cards to GAI, CSA or PRO. I only deal with the top two companies. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Ethical Question #549
Posted By: Corey R. Shanus
Peter's response hits the nail on the head. The responsibilty of the seller is to provide such disclosure that a reasonably prudent buyer would want to have. In this instance I know if I was the buyer I sure as heck would want to know the card had been rejected by one of the grading services. Yes, too, the seller can accompany this disclosure with a tirade about the idiots who perhaps work for the grading service and that they simply were wrong about their assessment of the card. But the initial disclosure must be made. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Ethical Question #549
Posted By: John S
It would only be fair to disclose this information to the seller. Your opinion about the condition of the card, regardless of your hobby experience, will carry little weight compared to that of one of the reputable grading companies. In practical terms that equals dollars and cents lost for the potential buyer as the value of the card (depending on the issue) will be only a fraction of an untrimmed example. It is your responsibility either to re-submit the card or disclose the information to potential buyers. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Ethical Question #549
Posted By: Hal Lewis
Guys: |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Ethical Question #549
Posted By: leon
The OJ Delehanty I sold you, that I bought raw on ebay, was rejected by the idiots at PSA. They didn't have a clue. SGC put it in an 84 holder as they should have. Will you please sell it back to me now for what you paid? But to answer the question I don't believe you need to disclose that xxx grading company rejected it before it was put into abc's holder now. Just my opinion though. Everyone has their own view on this...and I don't care if a card I buy, in a slab, has been rejected before and I am not told. I look closer at slabbed cards today than I used to ....especially in anyone but SGC's holders. (I still look but I trust them more)....regards .....and Hal...I think we talked about the Delehanty before you bought it from me...I knew the darn thing wasn't trimmed... |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Ethical Question #549
Posted By: jay behrens
...or, how about if you bought a raw card from someone and they told you the card was trimmed, but then it ended up being graded? Do you diclose that? |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Ethical Question #549
Posted By: Martin Neal
That may be be the most ethical thing to do, but I don't think I have ever seen that disclosed on a EBAY auction. I'm guilty of doing that with the three SGC cards I sold. At the time it did't enter my mind as being unethical, but I can see where someone would think that. Let me add that I would gladly repurchase any one of those cards back if the original purchasers prefer that. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Ethical Question #549
Posted By: Corey R. Shanus
I believe in erring on the side of disclosure. Suppose in the card Leon describes it was SGC that first rejected it and then PSA slabbed it. Under the rationale of buy the card and not holder, coupled with my view that in regard to vintage cards I have more confidence in what SGC says than PSA, if I was the buyer I sure would want to know the card was rejected by SGC. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Ethical Question #549
Posted By: Eric Brehm
I think all of the major grading services are hyper-sensitive to the card alteration problem right now and are trying to err on the safe side when it comes to authenticating and grading cards. They are trying to protect their reputations. They would rather risk frustrating a customer than holder a card that is later shown somehow to be altered. (Either way, they get paid for looking at the card of course.) I think this is particularly true of high-value cards, where the stakes are higher. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Ethical Question #549
Posted By: leon
I am not saying you are wrong and that is certainly a valid view you have. As long as we all KNOW it's not happening (rejection disclosre), because it's not, then at least we aren't being naive. regards |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Ethical Question #549
Posted By: anthony
Yes, you should always disclose the trimmed fact or any other marks or problems with the card or offer a refund...especially if you're not going to put a scan of the back in listing or on the b/s/t |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Ethical Question #549
Posted By: Steve M.
out the SOB. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Ethical Question #549
Posted By: Cobby33
If you like the card, have it slabbed as A or AUT. If not, it's worth a disclosure. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Ethical Question #549
Posted By: warshawlaw
I'd say it's time to stop collecting slabbed cards; keep and enjoy it. Edited to add: Some of my favorite cards are ungradeable. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Ethical Question #549
Posted By: davidcycleback
Assuming you could receive a refund from the original buyer: When the card was returned |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Ethical Question #549
Posted By: Hal Lewis
Leon: |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Is this ethical??? | Archive | Hockey, Olympic, Auto Racing And All Other Cards | 3 | 03-30-2009 04:59 PM |
T3 Turkey Red Ty Cobb PSA Authentic $749.95 ($549.95 after MSN Live Cashback) | Archive | Tobacco (T) cards, except T206 B/S/T | 2 | 03-01-2009 11:06 AM |
Hypothetical ethical issue. What would you do? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 19 | 06-25-2008 11:43 PM |
Dealer ethical groups | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 0 | 11-26-2006 04:37 PM |
solution to ethical problems? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 4 | 01-17-2005 12:38 PM |